Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022
Bilateral Oophorectomy and the Risk of Breast Cancer in BRCA1 Mutation Carriers: A Reappraisal.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kotsopoulos Joanne, Lubinski Jan, Gronwald Jacek, Menkiszak Janusz, McCuaig Jeanna, Metcalfe Kelly, Foulkes William D, Neuhausen Susan L, Sun Sophie, Karlan Beth Y, Eisen Andrea, Tung Nadine, Olopade Olufunmilayo I, Couch Fergus J, Huzarski Tomasz, Senter Leigha, Bordeleau Louise, Singer Christian F, Eng Charis, Fruscio Robert, Pal Tuya, Sun Ping, Narod Steven A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The lack of consensus on whether bilateral oophorectomy impacts risk of developing breast cancer among BRCA1 mutation carriers might be attributed to various biases, specifically, cancer-induced testing bias due to inclusion of prevalent cases. We conducted two complementary matched case-control analyses to evaluate the association of oophorectomy and BRCA1 breast cancer.
METHODS: A research questionnaire was administered every two years to collect information on exposures and disease. In the first analysis, we limited the study to prevalent breast cancer cases (diagnosed prior to study entry; n = 2,962) who were matched to controls on year of birth and country of residence (n = 4,358). In the second approach, we limited to 330 incident cases (diagnosed in the follow-up period) and 1,548 matched controls. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of invasive breast cancer.
RESULTS: In the first approach, there was a significant inverse association between oophorectomy and the risk of developing breast cancer [OR = 0.43; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.34-0.55; P < 00001]. In the second approach, there was no association between oophorectomy and risk (OR = 1.21; 95% CI, 0.87-1.70; P = 0.26).
CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of women with a personal history of breast cancer prior to ascertainment likely impacts upon the association of oophorectomy and BRCA1 breast cancer risk.
IMPACT: Oophorectomy is unlikely a determinant of breast cancer risk in BRCA1 mutation carriers but should be offered at age 35 to reduce the risk of ovarian and fallopian tube cancer.
METHODS: A research questionnaire was administered every two years to collect information on exposures and disease. In the first analysis, we limited the study to prevalent breast cancer cases (diagnosed prior to study entry; n = 2,962) who were matched to controls on year of birth and country of residence (n = 4,358). In the second approach, we limited to 330 incident cases (diagnosed in the follow-up period) and 1,548 matched controls. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate the adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of invasive breast cancer.
RESULTS: In the first approach, there was a significant inverse association between oophorectomy and the risk of developing breast cancer [OR = 0.43; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.34-0.55; P < 00001]. In the second approach, there was no association between oophorectomy and risk (OR = 1.21; 95% CI, 0.87-1.70; P = 0.26).
CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of women with a personal history of breast cancer prior to ascertainment likely impacts upon the association of oophorectomy and BRCA1 breast cancer risk.
IMPACT: Oophorectomy is unlikely a determinant of breast cancer risk in BRCA1 mutation carriers but should be offered at age 35 to reduce the risk of ovarian and fallopian tube cancer.